Fuel efficiency in cruise

Really interessting, closer together then I thought! (na) it is a N Version!

SE turboprops are similar to SE pistons on a cost per mile but that's due to the fuel price differential, which is now removed in the UK unless flying on business, or training (whatever that means - not sure how people actually operate the system as it is based on self declaration).

Obviously there is a big incentive to fill up outside the UK, where the business/private question will not be asked, but then you can't claim the duty drawback when leaving the UK...

What the TP figures don't show is the huge extra cost of operating a TP... and only the 1999kg Jetprop gets under the route charges.

What the TP figures don't show is the huge extra cost of operating a TP

As in?

Very interesting. Also explains why the C210 is the workhorse of GA in Oz & Africa.

As in?

Costs are predictable but high. The TBM850 has a regular landing gear inspection which costs € 60 000 plus VAT.

That makes the RV8 look good, especially when its concurrently going faster than most of the rest and can do aerobatics too. The key reason is weight, or the lack of it.

The TBM850 has a regular landing gear inspection which costs € 60 000 plus VAT

At what interval does this occur? When speaking in general terms about turbines being expensive it really depends. The landing gear itself doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's a turbine, but perhaps reflects on the 4+ MUSD sticker price, which puts it in the league of light jets and Beech 90s.

I'd be interested to see the difference in operating cost over a 10 year period for a Mirage vs Meridian, or even a Jetprop. Similarly, the standard P210 vs Silver Eagle would be an interesting comparison.

I am sure that inspection is not common, because there are outfits in the USA which will do a flat rate maintenance regime on a TBM for about $50k/year.

That's if you don't fly it - any hours related cost goes on top of that.

Also there is the, ahem, subtle issue of whether you maintain to Part 91 or not. Under Part 91, there are no lifed parts except stuff in the Airworthiness section of the MM. That is how it should be. If a part can be run on condition then it should be run on condition and anything else is just profiteering.

But many maintenance companies interpret the MM "creatively", and the typical TBM owner will just pay the bills. The default on turboprops is to do everything in the MM, and Socata's MM is extremely comprehensive. The list of Annual TB20 tasks is 1cm of paper, double-sided.

EASA reg planes are of course on a different "revenue generating" regime anyway.

You can make significant savings by doing stuff "on condition". For example a TB20 Annual fully per the MM is say €8k whereas a "sensible" Annual is say €3k. This is notwithstanding the fact that every maintenance company will say "performed IAW the MM" on the release to service and they will tick all the boxes

If I bought a TBM I would run it strictly per Part 91, using a freelance A&P/IA and we would do exactly the correct stuff. How much that would save I don't know as I have never looked at it, but I bet quite a lot - perhaps 50%.

There are other costs e.g. hangarage on a TB20 might be €7k whereas a TBM in the same hangar will be €25k. It's a much bigger plane. "My" hangar is full of them so I am quite intimately familiar... Landing fees are massively bigger; think 10x. And obviously insuring a $3.3M (current price) hull will cost ~8x more than insuring say a $330k hull.

Fuel costs are probably a small bit of all that is involved.